You are here: / / SUPPORT MAGISTRATE DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO REDUCE FATHER’S CHILD...
,

SUPPORT MAGISTRATE DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO REDUCE FATHER’S CHILD SUPPORT BY DISTRIBUTING A TAX REFUND (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the Support Magistrate did not have jurisdiction to reduce father’s child support by distributing a tax refund:

We agree with the mother, however, that the court erred in denying her … objection to that part of the Support Magistrate’s order that, in effect, distributed half of the parties’ tax refund to the father by reducing his child support obligation by that amount. We have previously stated that “the jurisdiction of Family Court is generally limited to matters pertaining to child support and custody . . . , and tax deductions or exemptions are not an element of support”… . “[T]he father’s entitlement to claim the child[ren] as [] dependent[s] for income tax purposes is not an element of support set forth in Family Court Act article 4, and thus the court lacks jurisdiction” to distribute the parties’ tax refund … . Therefore, … we remit the matter to Family Court to recalculate the father’s child support obligation without regard to the parties’ income tax refund. Matter of Bashir v Brunner, 2019 NY Slip Op 00746, Fourth Dept 2-1-19

 

You might also like
THE OFFICER’S TESTIMONY HE COULD NOT SEE INSIDE THE CAR FROM A DISTANCE OF 10 TO 15 FEET PROVIDED PROBABLE CAUSE TO STOP THE CAR FOR A “TINTED WINDOWS” VIOLATION; THE DISSENT ARGUED IT WAS DARK AT THE TIME OF THE STOP AND THE OFFICER DID NOT LINK HIS INABILITY TO SEE INSIDE THE CAR TO THE TINTED WINDOWS AS OPPOSED TO THE AMBIENT DARKNESS (FOURTH DEPT). ​
ALTHOUGH THE DRIVER WAS INTOXICATED AND WAS DRIVING AT HIGH SPEED, DEFENDANT MUNICIPALITY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE FAILURE TO CLOSE THE PARK GATE AND THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE SPEED LIMIT AND ROAD-CURVE SIGNS DID NOT CONSTITUTE NEGLIGENCE, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED EITHER TO THE VACATION OF HIS GUILTY PLEA OR TO A SENTENCE WHICH CONFORMED WITH THE SENTENCE PROMISE; DEFENDANT’S 440 MOTION WAS NOT BARRED BY PROVISIONS OF CPL 440.10 (FOURTH DEPT).
Fraud and Breach of Fiduciary Causes of Action Dismissed as Duplicative
PLAINTIFF WAS DEFENDANT’S SPECIAL EMPLOYEE WHEN INJURED, PLAINTIFF’S SOLE REMEDY IS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION (FOURTH DEPT).
THE MAJORITY HELD THAT THE SIX-YEAR DELAY BETWEEN WHEN THE PEOPLE WERE AWARE OF THE DNA EVIDENCE LINKING DEFENDANT TO THE RAPE AND DEFENDANT’S ARREST DID NOT DEPRIVE DEFENDANT OF DUE PROCESS; THE DISSENT DISAGREED (FOURTH DEPT).
RELEASE DID NOT ENCOMPASS A BREACH OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ITSELF.
ALTHOUGH EVIDENCE OF PRIOR THREATS AGAINST THE VICTIM MAY BE ADMISSIBLE UNDER MOLINEUX, SUCH EVIDENCE MUST BE IN ADMISSIBLE FORM, HERE THE HEARSAY EVIDENCE OF PRIOR THREATS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED FOR THE TRUTH OF THE MATTERS ASSERTED.

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE TOLLED THE STATUTE... STATEMENTS MADE BY THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE CONCERNING HER DECISION TO FIRE PLAINTIFF,...